AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was convicted of child solicitation following a jury trial. The case involved the Defendant setting up a meeting at a shopping mall with a sheriff's deputy who was posing as a 15-year-old girl. The Defendant arrived at the mall, walked past the meeting place twice, was seen sending a text message to the deputy, and then proceeded to a new meeting location sent by the deputy (para 7).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The Defendant argued against the constitutionality of the statute under which he was convicted, asserting it violated free speech, the commerce clause, and due process. He also claimed that criminal sexual communication should be considered a lesser included and more specific offense than child solicitation, based on the elements of each crime. Additionally, the Defendant argued for the inclusion of an entrapment defense instruction to the jury and criticized the appellate court's handling of procedural matters related to the submission of affidavits supporting a search warrant (paras 2-3, 5).
• Appellee: The State, through its memorandum in opposition, presumably defended the constitutionality of the statute, the classification of the offenses, and the procedural handling by the court, although specific arguments from the State are not detailed in the decision (para 6).

Legal Issues

• Whether the statute under which the Defendant was convicted violates constitutional protections related to free speech, the commerce clause, and due process.
• Whether criminal sexual communication is a lesser included and more specific offense than child solicitation.
• Whether the district court erred in not instructing the jury on the defense of entrapment (paras 2-4).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment and sentence of the district court (para 8).

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, J. (J. MILES HANISEE, J., and JENNIFER L. ATTREP, J., concurring): The Court found the Defendant's constitutional challenges against the statute to be unpersuasive, citing precedent from State v. Ebert and declining to revisit the opinion. The Court also rejected the Defendant's argument that criminal sexual communication is a lesser included offense of child solicitation, clarifying that the elements of the two crimes do not overlap as the Defendant suggested. The Court addressed the Defendant's entrapment defense argument by noting the repetition of earlier arguments does not meet the burden of responding to a summary calendar notice. Regarding procedural complaints about affidavit submission, the Court clarified the requirements under Rule 12-208 NMRA and criticized the Defendant's appellate strategy for omitting relevant facts. The Court concluded that the deputies had sufficient probable cause for the Defendant's actions at the shopping mall, supporting the conviction (paras 2-7).